REASONS TO NOT ELECT AN INEXPERIENCED POLITICAL “OUTSIDER” FOR U.S. PRESIDENT

…President Obama’s Final SOTU Speech

 

There are good reasons for electing individuals experienced in governing.

 

Some individuals have accused me of only having good things to say about President Obama’s presidency.  Well, when it comes to his politics versus the conservatives, that would be correct.  But as to Obama’s performance as the chief executive, I have always wished that he had had more hands-on experience in day to day governing before he went for the brass ring.  Unfortunately, with the financial debacle hitting as he came into office, he did not have the luxury of taking his time for working into the job.

 

One of the issues that became evident to the nation and from the president in his final SOTU speech was the negatives of President Obama’s lack of previous executive and longer Senatorial experience.

 

As one pundit has stated, instead of Obama having developed meaningful relationships as had Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, “Obama would apparently rather be browsing in a bookstore than schmoozing with D.C. Republicans.”

 

It was a “day late and dollar short”, but the president did admit that his presidency had failed in bringing the two parties together.  In this speech, he acknowledged that during his two terms, the gap between the parties today, was now wider than when he took office.  Yes, the Republicans in early 2008 said they weren’t going to work with the new president. But his personal lack of attempting to develop any real relationships outside of his party, this only made his ability to obtain any possible consensus that much harder.

 

Even his using golf for his main relaxation activity was seldom used for developing a relationship with golfers from across the aisle.  He pretty much only played golf with his Democratic cronies or his personal friends outside of politics.

 

If you didn’t know that this was Obama’s last SOTU speech, you would have thought that he was giving a campaign stump speech, not a final State-Of-The-Union speech.

 

As examples, in the speech Obama made his call for 2016 voters to “reject any politics . . . that targets people because of race or religion,” a definite shot at candidate Trump’s statements against Muslims.

 

Obama took other shot at Trump when he stated “those peddling fiction about America’s economy in decline or American military strength waning”.   Then his shot at Ted Cruz’ “calls to carpet-bomb civilians . . . may work as a TV sound bite, but it doesn’t pass muster on the world stage.” And he didn’t leave out a slap at Chris Christie’s comment of “claims that the fight against the Islamic State is “World War III.”

 

The speech sounded more like he was in fact running for a third term.  Or perhaps he had just decided to help both Hillary and Bernie from his last national position on the president’s bully pulpit.

 

But as to areas for showing that I am not a total 100% supporter of Obama’s actions, I was very disappointed when In the 2008 election, Obama killed the public financing system for presidential campaigns.  He did this when he became the first presidential candidate since Watergate to run a campaign entirely financed by private money. This was after Obama had vowed that he was “firmly committed to reforming the campaign system as president.” But on the issue of campaign finance reform, he hasn’t even brought campaign financing up.

 

In his 2010 SOTU speech, Obama denounced the Supreme Court’s Citizens-United decision.  But nothing has been done since, and he did not use any “Executive Orders” for fixing the mess of the rise of super PACs and the undisclosed “dark money” to those groups that say they don’t need to report their spending.  Obama’s own IRS isn’t even demanding that these so called “social welfare organizations” report their spending.  And the Federal Election Committee (FEC) is as dysfunctional as ever.  Where were you on those issues Mr. President?

 

The president now claims he can’t do these things alone.  But he sure has done a lot without anybody’s help with his Executive Orders like he did for closing gun sales loop-holes and various issues with immigration.  His orders could have been used, and still could be used, but will he?

 

He’s already being called a dictator and an emperor by the GOP and the legislators have already said they will only be in session for 90 days for this 114^th Congress.  So obviously, nothing is going to be done by the do-nothing Congress for Obama’s last year in office.   Hell, he should just go for it.  If a Democrat doesn’t win this year, the new Republican president will just void them anyway.

 

So, as I said, yes I have been a strong supporter of this president, but it hasn’t all been “Hearts & Roses”.

 

But now for the potential bad news.  Only one time in history has a two-term president been followed by a new president from the same party.  Hopefully, this year will be the second time.

 

God help us if it doesn’t happen that way this year.

 

Copyright G.Ater 2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

President Obama’s final State of the Union address was part stump speech for the third term he’ll never have and part melancholy addendum to the first speech that propelled him to national attention.

 

Far more than with George W. Bush in 2008, Bill Clinton in 2000 or Ronald Reagan in 1988, the roiling presidential campaign was an unmentioned but omnipresent subtext of the speech. While Obama’s two-term predecessors referred only glancingly to the impending elections, his would-be Republican replacements were the unnamed but unmistakable targets of his critique.

 

Indeed, Donald Trump was watching; the speech, he tweeted, “is really boring, slow, lethargic,” which raises the question of what, exactly, he imagines serving as president is like.

 

Obama’s intended audience wasn’t so much Trump, et al., but voters tempted by Trump’s ugly, divisive message. Americans shouldn’t be seduced, Obama argued, by those “peddling fiction” about America’s economy in decline or American military strength waning.

 

Likewise, “calls to carpet-bomb civilians . . . may work as a TV sound bite, but it doesn’t pass muster on the world stage.” Take that, Ted Cruz. Nor do overblown claims that the fight against the Islamic State is “World War III.” Take that, Chris Christie.

 

And addressing the revolt against “political correctness” that is the oddly energizing force of the 2016 campaign, Obama renewed his call to “reject any politics . . . that targets people because of race or religion.”

There have been stretches when Obama exudes the attitude that he can’t wait to get out of town, to be freed from having to deal with dumb politicians and dumber politics. He’d rather be browsing in a bookstore than schmoozing with senators.

 

Tuesday night, with his gracious nod to the new House speaker, Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), and Ryan’s interest in issues of poverty, reflected a different Obama, the one reluctant to pack his bags. Even more, the one sorrier not to have another shot, now that he has a better grasp of how to do the job.

 

Which leads to the sadder-but-wiser president, and the contrast to the uplifting Obama, circa 2004, with his vision of uniting red and blue America. The older, grayer Obama grasps that achieving “a better politics” is not simply a matter of goodwill and trying harder; he rues that his presidency has instead left the parties more divided than ever.

 

“We have to change the system to reflect our better selves,” he said, citing nonpartisan redistricting, voting rights and campaign finance reform. Specifically, “I believe we’ve got to reduce the influence of money in our politics, so that a handful of families or hidden interests can’t bankroll our elections.”

 

Terrific, but the question arises: Where has this guy been for the past seven years, especially on the issue of campaign finance reform? “It’s great for him to talk about it, but he’s done nothing for the last seven years,” said Democracy 21 President Fred Wert-heimer. “It’s a fundamental failure of his presidency.” Still, he credits the administration for helping to stop some legislative changes that would have made matters even worse.

 

In 2008, Obama put the nail in the coffin of the public financing system for presidential campaigns, becoming the first presidential candidate since Watergate to run a campaign fueled entirely by private money. Obama vowed then that he was “firmly committed to reforming the system as president.” Uh-huh.

 

More broadly, Obama has denounced the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, most notably in his 2010 State of the Union address, but has put no real effort into fixing the mess created by the rise of super PACs and, even worse, the gusher of undisclosed “dark money” to groups that claim exemption from reporting requirements.

 

Obama’s Internal Revenue Service has repeatedly postponed writing rules that would force these phony “social welfare organizations” to disclose political spending. The Federal Election Commission remains as dysfunctional as it was the day he took office.

 

And campaign finance reform advocates have been beseeching the administration for years to shed at least some sunlight on dark money through an executive order that would require federal contractors to report such contributions. Such an order would not solve the dark-money problem, but it would be an important start.

 

“I can’t do these things on my own,” Obama said of his promised political reform agenda. The executive order is one thing he can. And it wouldn’t require that third term.